Back to Main Page / Back to List of Rules
Rule 483. Order on Application for Writ of Error
In all cases where the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is a correct one and where the principles of law declared in the opinion of the court are correctly determined, the Supreme Court will refuse the application with the docket notation, "Refused." In all cases where the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is a correct one but the Supreme Court is not satisfied that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in all respects has correctly declared the law, it will refuse the application with the docket notation, "Refused for want of merit." In all cases where the Supreme Court is without jurisdiction of the case as presented in the application it will dismiss the application with the docket notation, "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction."
Provided, that in cases of conflict named in Subdivision 2 of Art. 1728 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, refuse the writ of error where the court is in agreement with the decision of the Court of Civil Appeals in the case in which the application is filed; and in cases of such conflict with a previous opinion of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, without the necessity of granting the writ and hearing the case, reverse and remand the same on the application for writ of error.
Source: Art. 1728, last two sub-paragraphs.
Change: Substitution of notation, "Refused for want of merit" for the notation under the present practice, "Dismissed for want of jurisdiction, correct judgment."
Oct. 29, 1940, eff. Sept. 1, 1941.
Oct. 10, 1945,eff. Feb. 1, 1946
July 20, 1954, eff. Jan. 1, 1955
July 20, 1966, eff. Jan. 1, 1967
Oct. 3, 1972, eff. Feb. 1, 1973
July 22, 1975, eff. Jan. 1, 1976
June 10, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981
Repealed by order of April 10, 1986, eff. Sept. 1, 1986.
(No. 86c) Question: In Consolidated Underwriters v. Ruff, 164 S.W.2d 550 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1942), the Court of Civil Appeals held that the action of the trial court in orally calling attention to a conflict in the jury's findings instead of reducing that instruction to writing, in accordance with Rule 295, committed reversible error upon the ground, as expressed in its opinion, that "In giving additional charges to the jury this rule must be complied with, since it has the force and effect of a statute.... Where the statute regulating the giving of the charges to the jury is violated, error must be presumed." The Supreme Court refused application for writ of error in the case for want of merit, thus declining, under Rule 483, to approve the opinion. Does the violation of such a requirement as is found in Rule 295 present a case of presumed harm?
Answer: In our opinion the answer should be in the negative. As to presumed harm, see the above questions and answers and No. 35 in 5 Tex. B.J. 170. As to the pertinent distinction between rules and statutes see No.6, 5 Tex. B.J. 168 and Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Lightfoot, 139 Tex. 304, 162 S.W.2d 929 (1942). Although the Subcommittee, considers that the result should be the same if a statute had been involved, that question is not presented here because in this instance the requirement of writing is found entirely in a rule of court.
6 Tex. B.J. 77 (1943) reprinted in 8 Tex. B.J. 33 (1945).